Is it significant that great modern philosophers like Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Hegel, and Wittgenstein were all unmarried? Is there an incompatibilty between major philosophical standing and the state of matrimony? Once a guy has savored the consolations of philosophy, does the idea of a wife leave him cold?

Comments

You're not the first one to observe a negative correlation between being an eminent philosopher and being married! If there's an explanation for this, I suppose my armchair sociology would lead me to expect it has to do with the fact that philosophy is both fascinating and challenging, and has a way of making its practitioners obsessive. In this way, it's perhaps a bit like mathematics. Both are topics that it's quite hard to just forget when you leave the office or study. As a result, it might not be so much that the idea of a spouse leaves one cold, but that one doesn't have the energy to pay attention to a spouse after wrestling with a philosophical problem for days or months.

On the other hand, Berkeleywas married, Locke never married but was involved with Damaris Cudworth, and Mill was married. More recently, Quine and Rawls were married. At any rate, my point is that there are plenty of exceptions to your rule, and many of us who have savored philosophy also find great of appeal in matrimony as well.

When Kant was asked why he never married, he said that when he had the inclination, he lacked the means, and when he acquired the means, he no longer had the inclination.

Read another response by Mitch Green, Saul Traiger

Read another response about Philosophers, Profession